A Threatening Horizon? Social concerns, the welfare state and public opinion towards Europe

Examining Board: Pr Mark N. Franklin, European University Institute (EUI Supervisor), Dr. Bruno Cautrès, CNRS – Cevipof Sciences Po Paris (External Supervisor), Pr. Stefano Bartolini, European University Institute, Pr. Russell J. Dalton, University of California at Irvine.Defence date: 25 July 2012European integration challenges the social boundaries of nation states and this phenomenon is not without consequences for individual attitudes. Within public debate, the impact of European integration on the welfare states has been extensively discussed, but we still lack conclusive analysis of the consequences for individual support for Europe. This thesis is an attempt to complement our knowledge on the logics of support for European integration. It investigates how individuals account for the economic and social consequences of integration and documents the logic underlying one the most salient issues in the present debate on Europe: redistribution. It investigates the individual and structural effects of redistribution on attitudes towards Europe, with a particular emphasis on how these effects develop across time and across different national contexts. Specifically, this study determines under what conditions European integration is perceived by citizens as a threat to national welfare regimes, and what are the consequences in terms of political allegiance. The causal mechanism is tested at three levels and over three different periods: at the European level (public opinion in Europe Twelve) and from 1986 to 2010, at the national level (public opinion in the Member states of Europe Fifteen), from 1996 to 2006, at the individual level, in 2009, in the twenty seven Member states of the European Union. Findings show that social protection has both structural and individual level effects on support for Europe, providing a narrative for changes in the level of support for Europe over time and explaining a large share of between-country differences, at the aggregate level. At the individual level, both welfare regimes and welfare issues have a strong impact on support for Europe. When it comes to social protection, the European Union works like a distant, yet strong, threat for individuals

You Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You: The Impact Of Redistribution On Attitudes Towards Europe

European studies unanimously designate 1992 as a breaking point in European public opinion. The 1992 dramatic drop in support for Europe has been analyzed as a side-effect of the Maastricht Treaty: the establishment of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) raised citizens’ awareness of the economic implications of EMU. In this paper I hypothesize that the financial pressures that came along with the EMU raised concerns about the potential consequences for the level of social protection and labour market (de-) regulation.           This paper assesses the empirical validity of this hypothesis by analyzing the effect of redistribution on support for Europe over time, in three steps. I investigate first the effects of redistribution on general support for Europe. Then, I narrow down the focus to concerns about the EU's impact on social protection. Finally, I investigate specific support for a European social policy. This paper provides a Time Series Cross Section analysis of public opinion in the European Union first fifteen member states, from 1996 to 2006, using Eurobarometer data.           Time Series Cross Section and Cross Section analyses conjointly show a robust effect of redistribution on attitudes towards Europe and contribute to our understanding of the foundations of political support in multi-level regimes. European redistribution produces a general European political allegiance that can almost compete with the one induced by national redistribution. But, when it comes to specific support and which authority should be in charge of social protection, general support does not translate easily into strong preferences for European competences. Specific support for a European social policy results from a strong cost/benefit calculation effect: people want to delegate social protection to the EU when their national system fails them

You Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You: The Impact Of Redistribution On Attitudes Towards Europe

European studies unanimously designate 1992 as a breaking point in European public opinion. The 1992 dramatic drop in support for Europe has been analyzed as a side-effect of the Maastricht Treaty: the establishment of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) raised citizens’ awareness of the economic implications of EMU. In this paper I hypothesize that the financial pressures that came along with the EMU raised concerns about the potential consequences for the level of social protection and labour market (de-) regulation.           This paper assesses the empirical validity of this hypothesis by analyzing the effect of redistribution on support for Europe over time, in three steps. I investigate first the effects of redistribution on general support for Europe. Then, I narrow down the focus to concerns about the EU's impact on social protection. Finally, I investigate specific support for a European social policy. This paper provides a Time Series Cross Section analysis of public opinion in the European Union first fifteen member states, from 1996 to 2006, using Eurobarometer data.           Time Series Cross Section and Cross Section analyses conjointly show a robust effect of redistribution on attitudes towards Europe and contribute to our understanding of the foundations of political support in multi-level regimes. European redistribution produces a general European political allegiance that can almost compete with the one induced by national redistribution. But, when it comes to specific support and which authority should be in charge of social protection, general support does not translate easily into strong preferences for European competences. Specific support for a European social policy results from a strong cost/benefit calculation effect: people want to delegate social protection to the EU when their national system fails them

Roundtable: Internationalization: Meanings and Practices of French-speaking Political Scientists

This round-table collection of articles explores the diversity and variation of French-speaking political scientist practices and meanings of internationalization in Francophone Belgium, Canada, Switzerland and France. Based on individual trajectories, choices and experiences, this collection illuminates the different shapes that French-speaking political scientist practices of internationalization can take as they are embedded in different professional contexts, that is, their department, their university and their regional or national professional community. Four main themes structure each contribution: first, the meanings of internationalization and the scope and the types of related practices; second, how ‘internationalization’, with its different meanings, impacts teaching and research activities; third, how ‘internationalization’ is part of academic career development and how universities, departments or national research agencies support the internationalization of early-career and tenured scholars; and, fourth, the issues associated with internationalization that are discussed in each contributor’s work environment

The Imbalanced Effect of Politicization: How EU Politicization Favours Eurosceptic Parties

This article investigates how the systemic politicization of the EU is associated with support for different political parties. We argue that, while politicization involves actions by both Eurosceptic and Europhile parties, it does not benefit parties at both extremes of the continuum in the same way. To investigate these differentiated effects, we leverage data from the European Elections Study and the Chapel Hill expert survey covering two decades (1999 to 2019). The evidence shows that, when it comes to voters’ preferences, politicization strongly favours Eurosceptic parties. We conclude that the systemic politicization of European issues is thus a one-street way leading to the reinforcement of the constraining dissensus on the EU

Support for Europe : assessing the complexity of individual attitudes

Recent scholarly work has underlined the importance of being cautious about the notion of Euro-skepticism by putting stress on alternative concepts and measures. This theoretical and empirical contribution has enriched the debate on support for Europe and its potential multidimensionality. However, the fit between theoretical conceptualization and measured attitudes is still under-investigated. Do European citizens actually express different types of support? To what extent are these attitudes structured as we think? This paper investigates the different dimensions that individuals associate with 'support for Europe' and whether it varies across national context. We test the empirical validity of three conceptualizations of support for Europe : (a) diffuse versus specific support, (b) identity versus diffuse support, (c) static versus dynamic perception of the European Union. To investigate these patterns, we relied on survey data from Eurobarometer. Methodologically, we use item-response theory modelling. This paper demonstrates that attitudes towards Europe are structured but in a less fine-grained manner than hypothesized in the literature. The distinction between diffuse and specific support is robust at the European scale as well as within each national context. Consequently, we provide an empirical tool to comparatively measure support in all member states. However it is not the case for the other dimensions of support, especially identity, and we advocate caution in using this variable as an explanatory variable

Narrating Europe : (re-)constructed and contested visions of the European project in citizens’ discourse

Changes in public opinion and civil society over the last decade have shown that citizens, particularly in old EU Member States, have developed more complex attitudes towards European integration. While the European project was previously generally described as a teleological depoliticized project, aiming at building peace and comforting growth, different competing visions of the European project are nowadays acknowledged and surface among the public on occasions, like referendums or treaty negotiations. While EU official narratives are documented by studies on the European institutions or the visions of leaders and parties, their empirical analysis at the citizens' level is still fragmented. Using focus group data in four countries (France, Portugal, Italy and Belgium) and three social groups (21 group interviews), we provide a comparative qualitative answer to how citizens envision European integration. Our results show that, first, official narratives do not fail to reach citizens, but they are also loosened, contested, and do not systematically produce a sense of common belonging. Second, they highlight the importance of socio-economic contexts, as well as national and personal experience in the re-appropriation of these narratives